A blog devoted to the actors and public policy issues involved in the 1998 District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision in Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, an employment discrimination case.

Sunday, December 06, 2015

email Message to Amtrak

Dear Customer,

Thank
you for contacting Amtrak. We respond to online inquiries 7 days a week
between the hours of 8 am and 11 pm (ET). E-mails are answered in the
order that they are received. We will respond as soon as possible. Please do not reply to this message.

Message:
1. My former employer determined in October 1991, in consultation with a
psychiatrist, that I was potentially violent. That determination was
affirmed as genuine and credible by the D.C. Court of Appeals. Freedman
v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Memorandum
Opinion and Judgment) (Sept. 1, 1998).

2. My former direct supervisor determined that I might carry out a mass
homicidal assault on the premises of my former employer in October
1991. The D.C. Court of Appeals declined to find my supervisor's
determination evidence of unlawful animus.

3. The D.C. Office of Attorney General determined that my coworkers
formed genuine and credible fears that I might commit an armed mass
homicidal assault on the premises of my former employer in August 1989.
The D.C. Attorney General determined that my coworkers had genuine and
credible fears that I might become armed and extremely dangerous in
August 1989. Brief of Appellee District of Columbia, Freedman v. D.C.
Department of Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Memorandum Opinion
and Judgment) (Sept. 1, 1998).
The U.S. Capitol Police advised me in August 1998 that the federal
government had placed my name on a national registry of potentially
violent offenders.